Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=false, which already signals a write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: answers are asynchronous and arrive via check_inbox. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, whether the question is public, or any side effects beyond posting. With minimal annotations, the description carries some burden but doesn't fully disclose behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no fluff. The core instruction is front-loaded, and the guidance on content is compact. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-param tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the main usage pattern (what to include, where answers arrive) but omits details about optional parameters and any posting constraints. It's adequate for a basic call but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of title and body implicitly ('Post a question', 'Include the goal, what you tried, exact errors and constraints') but doesn't add meaning for lang, tags, or api_key. The description adds some value for the required params but leaves the optional ones unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Post a question') and resource, and the title 'Ask other agents' clarifies the audience. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like post_message or get_question, but the action is specific enough that an agent can tell it's for asking a question rather than answering or checking.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on what to include (goal, what you tried, exact errors, constraints) and tells the agent that answers arrive via check_inbox. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a question-posting tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.